I referred to a lawsuit that conor oberst is involved in right now and that's it. I referred to the contents of a public statement which CONOR OBERST HAD PUT OUT. I said that I wouldn't personally interview him cause of that.

Really ironic how in that thread I was the one getting accused of like censoring the media and calling for a "boycott". When a totally reasonable discussion with really no legal risks got deleted. Actually says loads about how people approach this subject.

you didn't come into that thread and say "i wouldn't personally interview him" you threw down the moral gauntlet that you think DiS shouldn't do the interview. and other people reasonably took that to mean you were advocating treating him like he was guilty without actually saying he's guilty.

i'm not on any side but you're conveniently remembering that differently.

those people even accepted that I hadn't advocated that journalists presume him guilty.

Anyway, the non-libellous discussion has been deleted and proper open discussion will only be shut down and silenced. Very much proving the original point I made about what his lawsuit means for victims and rape discourse.

and a resolution between the 3 of you came about when everybody figured out what everybody really meant because you weren't clear from the beginning.

also, sean has always overreacted to this type of legal thing. you can pretend it means he secretly wants to silence discussion about rape discourse if you want (hint: he never has) but that's up to you.

Don't know who's been deleting stuff, didn't see the other threads at all.

Been generally disappointed with Oberst's solo stuff, considering how much I love Bright Eyes, so hoping this will be good. I know he's playing in July, haven't got tickets yet, not sure I can bring myself too.

What I said was absolutely clear at every stage. As I said in the previous thread, NickDS totally misunderstood what I said and then misrepresented my post. At no point did I suggest that someone should be treated as if they were guilty or assumed to be guilty (which is precisely what NickDS characterised my argument as).

I also haven't argued here that sean is setting out to silence discussion about rape. But that is undeniably the result due to his decision to delete a series of posts about it because of his over-cautious approach.

which referred to the libel case (and a bunch of replies). Nobody said anything directly defamatory about him though.

My argument was that suing someone for libel could damage efforts to support victims to speak out about their abuse - they have to be even more sure that they're gonna be believed or someone could sue them for $1 million dollars. Several other people/organisations have made this point.

Don't really care if this thread gets deleted cause its more important that people are allowed to say stuff like that. Up to sean what he does tho.

You took what I was saying out of context and put your own spin on it which is what you always do.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had but we've not had it yet. When this thread gets deleted how about its done on the social board and we can leave the music board for taking about the music?

As I said yesterday, I didn't take what you said out of context at all. You collapsed two very different things into one point which went directly against what I had actually said. You didn't distinguish between two different positions when the distinction was really important.

Can you actually not get the difference between certain discussions being shut down (as demonstrated by a bunch of posts being deleted) because of peoples unreasonable fears about legal action, and Sean deliberately trying to silence discussion about rape?

why is oberst going to court? is it to prove his innocence beyond doubt? would that even be possible? probably not. he’s going to court to prove that the alleged victim can’t prove his guilt.

i’m sure some people in his position really are innocent. they panic and get defensive and their knee-jerk reaction is to save face with legal action. but the message that sends out is not, ‘don’t lie about rape’. it is ‘don’t speak up about rape unless you can prove it happened’. that's the message you're supporting.

presuming you're not a godawful troll, i think you're conflating those ideas, and that kind of wilful misunderstanding is why these discussions are so frustrating.

Think the burden of proof would be on him to prove the allegations are false as he is the one suing, the other person not being able to prove its true wouldn't be enough. But like you say it will have a negative effect on other peoples confidence to come forward, messed up situation

should add that i've thought about this more than i've read up on it, wasn't 100% sure whether it was a counterclaim or straight-up libel or whatever. but yeah, logistics aside i do think his reaction's been pretty shitty, and that some of his defenders are either silly or disingenuous.

and it's basically just people saying that he's a rapist. Unless he can prove in court that it never happened (which, according to stuff on this blog run by a feminist who had a dialogue with the woman who made the accusations, and initially believed her, is a very possible thing: http://connyxoberst.com/), people are just gonna say he's a rapist ad infinitum.

It's not like a couple of decades ago when things would just disappear from the press- now stuff is constantly reinforced by social media. I understand the huge problematic aspects of what he's trying to do, but can anyone really say that they wouldn't do the same thing, providing they had the evidence, especially when their career is at stake?

if someone posted allegations about me on a blog that affected by job, career, social standing among friends and family let alone stangers across the world if I was a public figure, stuff that when my name was put into google the first suggestion that came up was my name and the allegation then you bet I'd sue.
Go to any of the blogs etc that are talking about it and you'll see people saying it's fact.

This isn't a police allegation, he has not been arrested, charged, questioned or anything. If it was it would be a much different situation.

I wonder if the nature of what he's been accused of makes people view it in a certain way (which is understandable) whereas if it was a less emotive topic people wouldn't care as much that he's suing? idk maybe that's a moot point as it is what it is.

look, i just think that *if* everything oberst says is true, his response still has an air of chopping off the thief's hands, you know? *if* the accusations are unfounded, there's still a bigger picture and i think he's on the wrong side of it. even if he's innocent, 'do nothing' isn't the only alternative to 'massive lawsuit'. he's going to war over 9/11. it's a tricky subject but i'm uncomfortable with his response and, personally, i'd be tempted to avoid writing or commissioning Conor Oberst coverage for the foreseeable future.

**if he's innocent**, which isn't a foregone conclusion, i would have liked to see him give the accuser more space and time to retract the claim, sans lawsuit, like even if it was a year or two ahead or something. let the facts come to light without using financial aggression to symbolise confidence and self-righteousness.

his reputation is damaged anyway. maybe the lawsuit helps, maybe not, but in any case he's still the big guy in this situation, and i'm not sure waving your dick around with $1m lawsuits is the only way, or the most sensitive way, to go about clearing your name. it might bring out the ~truth faster and more publicly, but it's also more aggressive and sensational, and i think that comes slightly at the expense of a sort of humanity, not just towards sexual abuse victims but his accuser, who ***if lying*** might be otherwise traumatised or unwell or generally not in the best position to defend herself.

the not covering him thing from the start and certainly not just in relation to the lawsuit. It's not like people were 'he's been accused of rape, we'll run the intervew anyway' to 'he's sueing his accuser?! Right no coverage for the forseeable future!'

And he did give her a chance to retract the statement which she refused. And if you read up on the court statement and also discussions from both sides including people who know her there's so many holes in her story* that the chances of it being true and very very silm indeed.

eg: she alledges it happened in 2003 and after that never bothered listening to Birght eyes/Saddle creek bands but there's proof from her social network sites that she was constandtly poster stuff about them. Also she went to a Bright Eyes concert in (I think) 2013 and commented 'Best memory ever'. Would you really go to your rapist's show and think it's amazing?
Not to mention that she says it was Oberst's bother was her school teacher at the time and took her as a 15 year old to the 2003 show and introduced her to him. Pretty dubious that that would happen and means there will be several witnesses (including people who claim to have been at the show with her and say it never happened).

and with the fact he gave her some time to retract, and everything i've said takes that into account.

i think 'Would you really go to your rapist's show and think it's amazing?' is slightly simplistic, but yeah, i'm certainly not interested in speculating over her story's veracity. i'm more interested in whether his response sets a good or bad precedent for celebrities in similar situations, even if they've been wrongly accused.

I completly understand the were the critism of him sueing comes from but I also completly understand why he's doing it.

I ask you what I asked up there^ what would you do if allegations were made and people were talking about it eveytime you were mentioned and saying it's probably true and let's not employ him any more etc. Would you just ask for an appology and go nevermind if you didn't get one?

but i honestly believe i'd do what i said earlier. let it play out, give the accuser more time, live with the consequences, and if necessary, release my side of the story without suing or taking legal action.

and yeah, that's definitely based on the nature of the case. were i wrongly accused of shitting in someone's greenhouse every tuesday at midnight i wouldn't hesitate to send in the lawyers.